Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

Airworks and other similar enterprises relied on "Of course you'll have your pension" and the mark sitting there accepting it - see my post above. They were infamous at St A for screwing a lot of F3s - centre wing sections - not actually their fault, MoD/RAF supplied bollocks drawings - that's when contractor heaven kicked off, if you had the skill set they needed to fix it.
I remember that being much talked about within the industry as i recall it lead (or popular myth held) to a few airframes being written off
 
I would imagine that when Johnson goes, the Voyager in question will quietly get re-painted.
Probably not - being in a non military scheme has its advantages and thanks to its comms fit its already out of the pool for detachments elsewhere so the hi viz schemes not an issue
 
If you had done some research on that - you would have found that money mostly went on servicing and a refit - a paint job was only a small part of what the money was spend on. However as you are a whinging re-moaning lefty twat....your bias will always get in the way of facts.
Grac knows that very well without doing any research into this specific claim.

Hes just being contrary and looking for bites

Incidentally you took hook line sinker and copy of angling times
 
Yep - another non story blown out of proportion by the BBC, they should change their logo to something like this:

Notice how the BBC never told the truth and made a big deal of when the guy confessed and said he just made stuff up about DC for a laugh.........in fact non of the lefty MSM corrected themselves - because they are all poor journalists and shallow sad human beings - just like the remoaner scum in UK that are not into democracy.
Am I missing something? What does the BBC have to do with this bit of cheap journalism published in the Sunday Times?
 
To be clear, the RAF Regiment are not, and never have been ‘infantry’. They fulfill the role of the old Royal Pioneer Corps defence companies - only not quite as good. And for political reasons they’ve shoved a couple of dozen of them in to the SFSG.
When did the Pioneers undertake counter IDF patrols in Afghanistan? When did they operate sophisticated ISR? Or are you talking hoop, again?
 
for a while now I've thought that the whole of the UK deployable force structure needs to be modelled on the USMC which if memory serves has around the same budget yet manages a lot more bang for its buck. we just seem to throw money away continuously.

a strong navy that is fully deployable and fitted with not for.

the RAF should be reduced to an airline/air national guard and be told no more often.

the useless infrastructure and top heavy brass contingents need to either be slashed or make the civvies at abbey wood deployable. why do we have a lt General for green issues FFS? a corporal can do that job.

IMO we also need to do something about the voluntary reserves by training them properly, giving the right cash incentives and legal protections while having enough of them to actually be usefull
《Checks calendar...yep, 2020 not 1920》
What a load of unmitigated bollocks. Have you missed the Legion being open?
 

Euclid

War Hero
When did the Pioneers undertake counter IDF patrols in Afghanistan? When did they operate sophisticated ISR? Or are you talking hoop, again?
As I said - similar role to the old RPC defence companies. Times, kit, tactics, locations change but still the same role.
 

green_slime

Old-Salt
this smacks of someone floating ideas to look at the impact rather than a plan in the final phases.

There are a few points of truth though. If we are to expand cyber and space capability within our current budget, then something else needs to move. The Services need a proper reform for the modern and future environment (many threads are covering). The MoD procurement process is broken and leaks value and quality.
 
Perhaps time to revisit the original 2010 plan Only this time pretty much everything that went into the adaptable force bucket moves to the AR.
 
They destroyed the police as well.

They are the party of wholesale privatisation.
The labour party are difficult to vote for, because its like putting brewsters millions in charge of the public purse. But I can't stand the alternatives and you could add the railways and public transport, or the logistics side of the nhs for a crap prep for a pandemic.

On defence in particular, the downside is those carriers, or other expensive projects and cutting bodies especially from the one service which is competent enough to do stuff outside of the day job, seems like another example of poor critical thinking.

The worst irony is if we were ever involved in an attritional conflict of any kind, then cannibalising support units to keep the front line manned is essential and if all the support is done by civvies that ain't going to happen. So we have an army not large enough to protect the realm and without any fat, will keel over if we suffered any kind of heavy loss of life.
 

Chimp

ADC
Yep - another non story blown out of proportion by the BBC, they should change their logo to something like this:

Notice how the BBC never told the truth and made a big deal of when the guy confessed and said he just made stuff up about DC for a laugh.........in fact non of the lefty MSM corrected themselves - because they are all poor journalists and shallow sad human beings - just like the remoaner scum in UK that are not into democracy.
Go and find yourself another thread.
 
Cuts to Royal Marines?
well yes, the Royals are going back to their pre WW2 roots as a shipborne raiding force, not a landing force. So loss of engineers, artillery, trucks is sensible given as how the future is forward based littoral strike ships.

Cuts to RAF?
Hercs are shagged, Pumas are well past their sell by date.
any significant loss? Not really. Hercs support SF, and the RAF are getting a dozen shiney new SF Wokkas that can send rough men of to do violence from forward deployed ships. Pumas? More than enough Wokkas to go Round - and the RAF now operates just one helicopter type - win.

Cuts to RN?
Sweepers are now just patrol boats, unmanned miney countermeasures has matured and is the new kid on the block.
expect to see the LPDs go to disposal, see no more landing craft.

Cuts to Army?
show me any costed and proven need for any Army bigger than 50,000?
Thats big enough for civil assistance and odd bit of fighting colonial Bush wars. We’re not now, not never, going to fight any peers - that would mean defence spending back above 6% - so time to stop that fantasy dead in its tracks.
 
Cuts to Army?
show me any costed and proven need for any Army bigger than 50,000?
Thats big enough for civil assistance and odd bit of fighting colonial Bush wars. We’re not now, not never, going to fight any peers - that would mean defence spending back above 6% - so time to stop that fantasy dead in its tracks.
And that there justifies ditching air defence , artillery and armour - which of course makes it far more likely you will need them.
At which point ive no doubt you will be leading the charge of how stupid the army was for not having the ability to tackle a peer.
It also ironically justifies a rather light infantry heavy army - you know the one you've said the generals are stupid for making.

We have a commitment to Nato and there is the need to retain skills to regenerate in the future.

Brushfire fighting should be a what it can do not its entire raison d'etre

Arguably it needs to be based on 5 Brigades of say 3 mech 2 light ( specialised as 1 air 1 amph)
That allows a sustained deployment of an infantry brigade deployed to wherever, and can be used to generate the 1 time use division for Gulf war 3.

Either way the crucial skills are kept in the event the UK does need to return to a 1989 defence posture.


As for the RAF - id reorganise the regiment as 4 squadrons - as either 2 ground defence and 2 with CAAM (or 4 with 2 platoons?? of each if thats more flexible operationally)


??Is it platoons in an raf regt sqn
 
You do realise the Number 10 Media Team published that?
I think that's the point; a rebuttal of the story by Number 10.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
I remember that being much talked about within the industry as i recall it lead (or popular myth held) to a few airframes being written off
Correct. They were F2s in for upgrade - there were about nine of them. Something to do with the aircrafts' keels(?) being treated rather harshly by cowboys with pneumatic hammers.
 
And that there justifies ditching air defence , artillery and armour - which of course makes it far more likely you will need them.
At which point ive no doubt you will be leading the charge of how stupid the army was for not having the ability to tackle a peer.
It also ironically justifies a rather light infantry heavy army - you know the one you've said the generals are stupid for making.

We have a commitment to Nato and there is the need to retain skills to regenerate in the future.

Brushfire fighting should be a what it can do not its entire raison d'etre

Arguably it needs to be based on 5 Brigades of say 3 mech 2 light ( specialised as 1 air 1 amph)
That allows a sustained deployment of an infantry brigade deployed to wherever, and can be used to generate the 1 time use division for Gulf war 3.

Either way the crucial skills are kept in the event the UK does need to return to a 1989 defence posture.


As for the RAF - id reorganise the regiment as 4 squadrons - as either 2 ground defence and 2 with CAAM (or 4 with 2 platoons?? of each if thats more flexible operationally)


??Is it platoons in an raf regt sqn

in your own time, list the size and capabilities the Army would need to be to fight and prevail against a low end peer like Russia in the Baltics.
hint, It’s heavy armour and artillery are currently effectively non existent capabilities.
 
Cuts to Royal Marines?
well yes, the Royals are going back to their pre WW2 roots as a shipborne raiding force, not a landing force. So loss of engineers, artillery, trucks is sensible given as how the future is forward based littoral strike ships.

Cuts to RAF?
Hercs are shagged, Pumas are well past their sell by date.
any significant loss? Not really. Hercs support SF, and the RAF are getting a dozen shiney new SF Wokkas that can send rough men of to do violence from forward deployed ships. Pumas? More than enough Wokkas to go Round - and the RAF now operates just one helicopter type - win.

Cuts to RN?
Sweepers are now just patrol boats, unmanned miney countermeasures has matured and is the new kid on the block.
expect to see the LPDs go to disposal, see no more landing craft.

Cuts to Army?
show me any costed and proven need for any Army bigger than 50,000?
Thats big enough for civil assistance and odd bit of fighting colonial Bush wars. We’re not now, not never, going to fight any peers - that would mean defence spending back above 6% - so time to stop that fantasy dead in its tracks.
The trouble with a clever costs based solution like say the ten year rule, is the unspoken. So you spend millions on bases overseas, then don't have the ships and aircraft to deploy to those costly bases, because of a crisis at home.

Your vision would be fine, until the fantasy turns to reality and militaries who hollow out, do not easily regenerate themselves without a working heavy industry, which we don't have anymore. So either we carry a lot of heft at the outset, or we are reduced to stringing barbed wire along the beach and praying for our allies.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Verifying a story with that level of specific detail is basic journalistic practice. Unverified gossip and leaks is tabloid journalism at best. Even Guido generally confirms their stories. This makes the ST look inept.
Was easy to refute, the Service Chiefs have met to discuss their IR propositions, with Sec State and NSA - not DC - and they met in a very unique location.

As I and others have said before we will see more and more of this as IR progresses, for those not close to proposition developments it's discerning the wheat from the chaff, but I sense we should see less than usual as lessons from previous SDSRs on leaks are being reinforced.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but not verifying their source's report about the meeting is a very bad look for the Sunday Times.
Why? Their reporting as been shite for a long time. They obviously don't care.
 

Latest Threads

Top